Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[fjtorres]

https://medium.com/@cshirky/publishi...g-6a80139d13cc

Lots of good points (and one factually incorrect paragraph, presumably as bait) as one elite holds up a mirror to the rest. Can't quote 90% so I'll stick with this:

Culture is a funny thing, transforming even people with otherwise democratic sensibilities into haughty patricians. Coll ran the New America Foundation, Packer wrote “The Unwinding”, the most sensitive portrayal of American hard times since Michael Harrington, yet the thought of Amazon improving the availability of books horrifies them.

The tension between their ordinary sympathies for the general public and their withholding of that support in this particular case stems from the duality of authorship as an open marketplace and a closed cultural arena. To criticize Amazon, the publishers and their defenders must simultaneously insist that literature is essential for society, and that a sudden increase in its availability would be a catastrophe. This tension was best dissected by Pierre Bourdieu in his masterwork, “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.” Bourdieu describes the dilemma this way:

Intellectuals and artists are thus divided between their interest in cultural proselytism, that is, winning a market by widening their audience, which inclines them to favor popularization, and concern for cultural distinction, the only objective basis of their rarity. [T]heir relationship to everything concerned with the ‘democratization of culture’ is marked by a deep ambivalence which may be manifested in a dual discourse on the relations between the institutions of cultural diffusion and the public.

On the next page, Bourdieu suggests that:

“An analysis of the debates which occurred when cheap paperbacks came onto the market — a promise of popularity for the author, a threat of vulgarization for the reader — would reveal the same ambivalence.”

This was a historical aside about the 1930s, but now looks like a guide to the current decade.

And this:

I say this as a beneficiary of that older system. I earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in advances for my last two books, to say nothing of the opportunities those books opened up, so the system has worked admirably well for me. However, I am a WASP, an Ivy League graduate, a tenured professor, and a member of the Sancerre-swilling East Coast Media Elite. Of course the existing system works well for me — it’s run by people like me, for people like me.

Despite my benefitting from it, I am unwilling to pretend that this system is beneficial for readers or for writers who lack my privilege. I’d always aspired to be a traitor to my class (though I’d hoped it would be for something a bit more momentous than retail book pricing), but treason is as treason does, so here goes: The reason my fellow elites hate the people who run Amazon is that they refuse to flatter our pretensions. In my tribe, this is a crime more heinous even than eating one’s salad with one’s dessert fork.

The threat Amazon poses to our collective self-regard is the usual American one: The market is optimized for availability rather than respect. The surface argument is about price, but the deep argument is about prestige. If Amazon gets its way, saying, “I published a book” will generate no more cultural capital than saying “I spoke into a microphone.”

Nothing like shining a spotlight on the elephant in the room.

[eschwartz]

If Amazon gets its way, saying, “I published a book” will generate no more cultural capital than saying “I spoke into a microphone.”

Oh, dear. Perhaps they will be forced to quantify what they mean by "publishing a book". I have been fried before on BWM books too so the time cannot come soon enough.

[Glorfindel]

Do you feel threatened? 'cause I don't

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

Do you feel threatened? 'cause I don't

Are you an author?

[Glorfindel]

Yes and no, depending on how you look at it. I haven't published anything yet if that's what you mean

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

Yes and no, depending on how you look at it. I haven't published anything yet if that's what you mean

Strictly out of curiosity, which road are you planning on going down?

[Glorfindel]

I'd like to make a source book about all the characters in Tolkien's works

[jgaiser]

I spend a bit of time on reddit - specifically on r/books and r/literature and one of the **worst** things you can do is post anything positive about Amazon. Oh, the angst, the chicken little, the end of literature as we know it. And a lot of it reminds me of conspiracy theorists. There is nothing you can do to convince folks that it just ain't so. And it's mostly readers and small-time authors.

[SteveEisenberg]

Now it’s a safe bet that Packer and I hate the same books — pop psychology, turgid genre fiction, heart-warming novels with relatable protagonists: “At a hotel in the Swiss alps, a penniless young beauty guards her secrets even while opening her heart…” He and I have been bred to hate that stuff. The difference is that while I disapprove of what other people read, I will defend to the death their right to read it.

Nonsense. George Packer never even hints at censorship, or stopping self-publishing. The OP article repels me because of its focus on impugning motives.

I have no sure way to know, but suppose it is true that most big publishing executives have a snobbish attitude towards books with the phrase "a penniless young beauty," and that Jeff Bezos has a tolerant one. So what? Objectively, Amazon is trying to suck the oxygen out of the market for lower-priced literature by pushing down the prices of brand name imprints so they will more often compete with the indie product. It doesn't matter whether or not Amazon executives are looking down on someone while harming them.

As for the OP talk about letting into the conversation those who can't afford the high price of brand new books, the big missing piece is the role of libraries. Random House, Harper Collins, Hachette -- eBooks mostly in the library. Thomas & Mercer -- I've never found one library eBook. Amazon won't let Overdrive touch the James Bond titles for which it owns American rights. Aren't they part of said conversation?

Amazon is no friend of the poor. Not in its treatment of warehouse workers, and not in its eBook distribution.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Oh, dear. Perhaps they will be forced to quantify what they mean by "publishing a book". I have been fried before on BWM books too so the time cannot come soon enough.

Or maybe the point is that the prestige should not--and never should have--come from just publishing, regardless of how hard it was to do or how exclusive the club was. Maybe, in the field of authorship, it should come from being able to say stuff like "I wrote the book that is considered the definitive work on the subject by the most respected people in the field..." or "...is loved by millions of people..." or "...that led to a cure for cancer..." etc.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Amazon is no friend of the poor.

I am poor and disabled. I can't get to my local library, so it isn't really worthwhile for me to pay for a card. I have no space for the paper anymore. Without something like a Kindle, I would have no access to books. I am unlikely to root for the side that wants to charge me more.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

so it isn't really worthwhile for me to pay for a card

Pay? Where do you live that you have to pay for a library card?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Amazon is trying to suck the oxygen out of the market for lower-priced literature by pushing down the prices of brand name imprints so they will more often compete with the indie product.

Implicit in your statement is the premise that "brand name imprints" should not have to compete with Indies and the like, simply because they are "brand name imprints". Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your objection is based on the "devaluing ebooks by discounting" argument. That is, Amazon, by its discounting, is destroying an existing perception that "brand name imprints" are superior to and not competing with the Indies. I would suggest to you that ebooks should compete on the basis of their quality as perceived by the market. "Brand name imprints", if in fact of superior quality, should sell more copies and in fact, according to Amazon, achieve optimal revenue at $9.99, well above the price of most Indies. If, of course, the perception I refer to above is incorrect ........

Your formulation of what Amazon is trying to do may well be correct. The common portrayal of Amazon as engaged in a price race to the bottom is simplistic and inaccurate. Amazon's strategy, not of course explicitly disclosed anywhere, can only be discerned from their actions and statements they have made. But I think we can safely say that they have implemented a long term strategy. I also think we can safely say that their long term goal is to dominate and control not only the retail book market but also the publishing market. This may lead to problems further down the track, depending on how well they succeed in achieving their goals, and how they choose to deal with their position of dominance. It is unlikely in my view that Amazon's success would result in a worse position for either readers or the vast majority of authors than we had with BWM publishers.

I have no sure way to know, but suppose it is true that most big publishing executives have a snobbish attitude towards books with the phrase "a penniless young beauty," and that Jeff Bezos has a tolerant one. So what? Objectively, Amazon is trying to suck the oxygen out of the market for lower-priced literature by pushing down the prices of brand name imprints so they will more often compete with the indie product. It doesn't matter whether or not Amazon executives are looking down on someone while harming them.

No. Of course not. Actions speak louder than words.

As for the OP talk about letting into the conversation those who can't afford the high price of brand new books, the big missing piece is the role of libraries. Random House, Harper Collins, Hachette -- eBooks mostly in the library. Thomas & Mercer -- I've never found one library eBook. Amazon won't let Overdrive touch the James Bond titles for which it owns American rights. Aren't they part of said conversation?

Let them eat cake?

[rhadin]

I wonder why there is such angst here on MR about some publishers and authors wanting to charge more than other publishers and authors? Seems to me the answer is not Amazon's way but the marketplace way: don't buy a book that costs more than you want to pay. If enough people refuse to pay the price, the price will be lowered. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

But if you feel you have to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator as determined by Amazon, then why not apply this across the board? Why not start agitating that all automobiles be sold for $25,000 or less. After all, a Rolls Royce will get you from point A to point B just like a Yugo. And let's insist that Apple not sell any of its products for more than the price of the least expensive computer or smartphone. After all, there is nothing special about how Apple crunches numbers or places a telephone call -- it uses the same networks as non-Apple products.

Bottom line is that I find these diatribes against the BPHs and the prices they want to charge as ill-conceived. There is nothing god-like about Amazon's price capping and no reason why any publisher should adhere to it. Similarly, there is nothing god-like about the books the BPHs publish and no reason why Amazon should sell them.

Let the market work as it should, and if you are unwilling to do that, at least be consistent and require all manufacturers and products to be sold at a price that is equal to but not higher than that of any of its competitors. After all, a TV is a TV.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I wonder why there is such angst here on MR about some publishers and authors wanting to charge more than other publishers and authors? Seems to me the answer is not Amazon's way but the marketplace way: don't buy a book that costs more than you want to pay. If enough people refuse to pay the price, the price will be lowered. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

But if you feel you have to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator as determined by Amazon, then why not apply this across the board? Why not start agitating that all automobiles be sold for $25,000 or less. After all, a Rolls Royce will get you from point A to point B just like a Yugo. And let's insist that Apple not sell any of its products for more than the price of the least expensive computer or smartphone. After all, there is nothing special about how Apple crunches numbers or places a telephone call -- it uses the same networks as non-Apple products.

Bottom line is that I find these diatribes against the BPHs and the prices they want to charge as ill-conceived. There is nothing god-like about Amazon's price capping and no reason why any publisher should adhere to it. Similarly, there is nothing god-like about the books the BPHs publish and no reason why Amazon should sell them.

Let the market work as it should, and if you are unwilling to do that, at least be consistent and require all manufacturers and products to be sold at a price that is equal to but not higher than that of any of its competitors. After all, a TV is a TV.

I suspect it's a case of whose ox is getting gored along with a certain level of tribalism.